3. Objection overruled. Only the third category would afford any right to relief under the general rules of appellate review which require objection and proper request for relief as a predicate to appellate review of matters arising from closing argument of counsel. State v. Martin, 484 S.W.2d 179, 180[1, 2] (Mo. 1972); State v. Bibee, 496 S.W.2d 305, 311-312[4-6] (Mo.App. 1973). In the third category, the first complaint of appellant is to the trial court's overruling of objections to the prosecutor's characterization of appellant as a "liar", "bum" and "potential cop killer."
A great majority of the courts follow the rule that when the evidence in a prosecution for robbery warrants a conviction of the crime charged, and there is no independent evidence warranting a conviction for assault and battery, an instruction on the lesser included offense need not be given. Wallace v. State, 290 Ala. 201, 207, 275 So.2d 634, 639 (1973); Watkins v. Commonwealth, 287 S.W.2d 416, 418, 58 A.L.R.2d 804, 807 (Ky. 1956); State v. Martin, 484 S.W.2d 179 (Mo. 1972); State v. Hicks, 241 N.C. 156, 159, 84 S.E.2d 545, 547 (1954); State v. Williams, 526 P.2d 1384, 1385-86 (Ore. 1974); James v. State, 215 Tenn. 221, 225, 385 S.W.2d 86, 88-89 (1964), cert. denied, 381 U.S. 941 (1965); State v. Chestnut, 20 Utah 2d 268, 437 P.2d 197 (1968). Annot., Robbery-Instruction on Assault, 58 A.L.R.2d 808, 809-21 (1958).
The transcript shows no objection to this argument, nor is reference made to it in the motion for new trial. Therefore, no proper foundation has been laid for presentation of the matter on this appeal. State v. Clark, 412 S.W.2d 493, 497[5-8] (Mo. 1967); State v. Martin, 484 S.W.2d 179, 180[1] (Mo. 1972). The second objection relates to argument based upon appellant's place of residence, which did not appear in the record.
Contemporaneous objection and proper request for relief are predicates to appellate review of matters arising from closing argument of counsel. State v. Hayes, 624 S.W.2d 16, 19-20[5] (Mo. 1981); State v. Martin, 484 S.W.2d 179, 180[1] (Mo. 1972). Consequently, appellant's complaint about the prosecutor's first and third comments could be considered, if at all, only if such comments amounted to plain error warranting relief under Rule 30.20, Missouri Rules of Criminal Procedure (19th ed. 1988).
Thus the point was not preserved for review. State v. Martin, 484 S.W.2d 179, 180 (Mo. 1972). We examine for plain error and find none.
Thus the defense failed to properly preserve the point for appeal. See State v. Hayes, 624 S.W.2d 16, 20 (Mo. 1981). State v. Martin, 484 S.W.2d 179, 180 (Mo. 1972). Therefore we may review only under the plain error standards as set out in Rule 30.20(b).
Where the evidence shows that the defendant was either guilty of the offense charged or guilty of no offense at all, there is no evidence to support the submission of a lesser included offense. State v. Martin, 484 S.W.2d 179, 181 (Mo. 1972); State v. Craig, 433 S.W.2d 811, 815 (Mo. 1968). Where proof of defendant's guilt of the offense charged is strong and substantial, and the evidence clearly showed the commission of the more serious crime, it is not necessary to instruct on a lesser included offense.
The objection at the trial, however, was confined to the single instance we treat and any other such impropriety was not preserved for review. State v. Martin, 484 S.W.2d 179, 180[1, 2] (Mo. 1972). The judgment of conviction is affirmed.
We next consider if the evidence supported an instruction on common assault. Where the evidence shows that the defendant was either guilty of the offense charged or guilty of no offense at all, there is no evidence to support the submission of a lesser included offense. State v. Martin, 484 S.W.2d 179, 181 (Mo. 1972); State v. Craig, 433 S.W.2d 811, 815 (Mo. 1968). Where proof of defendant's guilt of the offense charged is strong and substantial, and the evidence clearly showed the commission of the more serious crime, it is not necessary to instruct on a lesser included offense.
No objection was made to either remark and the matter has not been preserved. State v. Martin, 484 S.W.2d 179, 180[1] (Mo. 1972); State v. Barron, 465 S.W.2d 523, 529[9] (Mo. 1971). The judgment is affirmed.